Help me choose a 3c+ diamond

[bemail]

I am looking for a 3 carat+ main stone for a ring.
1) What do you think of the idealscope/ASET images of the 3 stone below? How do I analyze them and which looks to be the best?
2) All these stones fall within the recommended PS dimensions. Will there be a perceptible difference to the untrained eye between these stones and a super ideal? A super ideal is within reach but I don't see the point in paying more and going down on color/clarity if there is no real difference to the average observer.

Stone 1:



Stone 2:

 

[bemail]

Stone 3:

 

[rockysalamander]

Can you provide the certs or, at the least, the crown, pavilion, table and depth?

 

[bemail]

Can you provide the certs or, at the least, the crown, pavilion, table and depth?

I don't have these with me right now but I can provide them after the weekend. What do you think of the images so far?

 

[rockysalamander]

I'll be interested in other's opinions. So far...I like #2 of the three. I like #3 the least due to the serious flaws in the hearts. I'm on the fence with #1. But, they all have obvious cutting imperfections.

For a 3 carat stone and budget, I guess I have very high standards (ok, I have high standards at most budget ).You did not mentioned a budget, but would something like this be possible?

https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3878759.htm

 

[rockysalamander]

great comparison between ideal and super-ideal.
https://www.pricescope.com/communit...-extra-on-a-super-ideal.234492/#post-42233240

 

[bmfang]

Like rocky, I’d prefer #2

 

[HDer]

I agree with the others that the images for #2 look the best.

However, you haven't included the two most important factors (for me): price and size. I'm guessing those factors are pretty similar for the three?

 

[doberman]

#2 looks most symmetrical to me. But without knowing any of the variables it's hard to judge. As far as the difference between #2 and a superideal to the untrained eye, certainly some people could tell the difference if the two stones were placed side by side. The question is, how much is it worth to you?

 

[bemail]

Here are the specs of each stone:

Stone 1: 3.5c, H, VVS2 $57.7k
Depth: 62.5%
Table 55%
Crown angle: 35.5
Pav angle: 40.6


Stone 2: 3.785c I VS1 $57.5k
Depth: 62%
Table: 55.3%
Crown angle: 34.8
Pav angle: 40.8

Stone 3: 3.71c G VS1- Strong Blue Florescence $51.5k
Depth: 62%
Table: 57%
Crown angle: 35
Pav angle: 40.6

I love the icy whiteness of the G, but I am hesitant about the strong blue florescence. It also sounds like the G has the worst cut of the stones based on the posts above.

Thoughts?

 

[rockysalamander]

The larger the surface area of a gemstone (any gemstone), the easier it will be see flaws. Optical symmetry can be a real problem for some. If the wearer is very detail oriented and design oriented, then think carefully about how much visual symmetry you can sacrifice.

Of these three, still #2 for me. At least the imperfections in the cutting are more symmetrical than the other 2. #1 and 3 would be a no for me.

 

[SimoneDi]

I am usually the one to go for the best cut always, but in a 3+ carat and I color will show more and G sounds really nice. I would not be bothered by flouro if IDJ thinks that the doesn't have any negative effects on the diamond. Can IDJ share a video comparison?

 

[Katie Homuth]

Personally for me, fluorescence is better in lower colors. In the higher colored diamonds, if fluorescence is present, I go for a faint or medium rating. A strong or very strong can be a little over powering. Definitely have the diamond reviewed, in person for a hands on evaluation. I colored diamonds in this size are just fine as long as the cut is super ideal and all angles are working together to produce the most light return. When you increase optical symmetry, the color is not as apparent as it will be in a poorly cut diamond with light leakage. Remember that diamonds are graded for color, face down and through the culet size of the diamond Good luck on your search!